Judgment Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.-The petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by the order of the respondents, whereby they refused to restore their coal linkage. 2. The said writ petitions are based on similar factual foundation. Both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.(C) No. 5522 of 2006: 3. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th September, 2006 issued by the Respondent NO.3, contained in Annexure-11, whereby the said respondent has refused to restore the linkage of the petitioner's unit. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore the linkage/coal supply in its favour. 4. According to the petitioner its unit is based on CFRI Technology. It has registration with the Directorate of Industries as manufacturer of soft coke. In view of the requirement of the petitioner, the Coal India Ltd. (for short CIL) had granted coal linkage on 7th December, 1999 to the petitioner's unit for a total quantity of 4830 MT per month. 5. Subsequently, the CCL decided to sell coal under 'e-auction' Scheme. The petitioner had challenged the same in writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 2954 of 2005. An Interim order was passed dated 16th June, 2005, whereby the petitioner was to submit the undertaking for supply of coal. Such supply continued up to August, 2005. 6. In order to verify the linkage justification, the Respondent NO.5 issued letter dated 3rd December, 2004, asking the petitioner to furnish the documents, as per the list enclosed. According to the petitioner, it complied with the direction and furnished all the documents. 7. By letter dated 1st/2nd April, 2005, the Respondent No. 4 acknowledged receipt of the documents (19 in numbers) and asked the petitioner to explain as to why the letter sent through post on their address could not be delivered. The petitioner filed his reply dated 20th/21st April, 2005, explaining the situation. Respondent NO.4, thereafter, by letter dated 31st August, 2005 issued show cause notice to the petitioner to explain within ten days as to why coal supply to its unit should not be kept in abeyance. The petitioner by its letter dated 12th September, 2005 requested the respondents to disclose the reason or whether any further papers were required to be produced. The petitioner by its letter dated 12th September, 2005 requested the respondents to disclose the reason or whether any further papers were required to be produced. The petitioner, after sometime received a wireless message, informing the Respondent NO.2 that coal supply to the petitioner's unit alongwith others has been kept in abeyance. 8. One M/s Babul Smokeless Fuel Industries Pvt. Ltd., whose supply of coal was also kept in abeyance, preferred writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 4870 of 2005. challenging the wireless message. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 2nd February, 2006, setting aside the wireless message in respect of the said unit. 9. The petitioner preferred writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 7165 of 2005, praying for quashing the wireless message dated 24th September, 2005. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the postal peon had failed to serve the show cause notice due to absence of any person in the factory premises. The respondents presumed that the factory is closed. By order dated 20th July, 2006, the said writ petition was disposed of, remitting the matter to the respondents to finalise and pass appropriate order afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. By the impugned order dated 15th September, 2006, the Respondent No. 3 declined to restore the linkage of the petitioner and declared it to have lapsed. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the said order is based on assumption. The petitioner's unit was presumed to be closed on the basis of the endorsement of the postal peon on the registered letter that there was nobody to receive the letter. It has been stated that the petitioner has neither violated any terms and conditions of the linkage nor the data furnished by it has been found to be incorrect and no discrepancy could be detected with regard to the supply of coal. The order is not based on any proper reasoning. 11. The respondents have contested the writ petition, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is a Non-core Sector linked consumer. The linkage of coal has been granted for consumption of coal. By letter dated 3rd December, 2004, the petitioner was asked to submit the documents as per the list enclosed. The petitioner had submitted the documents and furnished the information required. The respondents have contested the writ petition, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is a Non-core Sector linked consumer. The linkage of coal has been granted for consumption of coal. By letter dated 3rd December, 2004, the petitioner was asked to submit the documents as per the list enclosed. The petitioner had submitted the documents and furnished the information required. By letter dated 1st April, 2005 the receipt of the documents (19 in numbers) was acknowledged. The petitioner was then asked to explain as to why nobody was available to receive the letter when the postman went to serve the same. Show cause reply was submitted by the petitioner. 12. By letter dated 31st August, 2005, M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. informed the petitioner that on verification of the documents, the Committee has observed negative status, as the Unit may not be in operation/working. By the said letter, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the supply of coal to the petitioner's unit be not kept in abeyance. 13. It has been submitted that the respondents have passed reasoned order dated 15th September, 2006, whereby the restoration of supply of coal was declined. The documents (19 in numbers) submitted by the petitioner have been examined by the respondents. On the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the Committee came to the conclusion that the operational/working status of the petitioner's unit is not established. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of representation. Even after taking decision, the same was communicated to the petitioner, asking as to why the coal supply should not be kept in abeyance. The impugned order dated 15th September, 2006 (Annexure-11) has been passed after giving full opportunity of hearing. The petitioner had submitted some documents, but it failed to submit the details of stock, coal stock register, electricity bills etc. 14. On the basis of the documents supplied, the impugned order dated 15th September, 2006 (Annexure-11) has been passed. W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2007: 15. The petitioners are manufacturing units of smokeless fuels at Faridabad and Kailash Garden-II, New Delhi. They were granted coal linkage of 5000 MT of coal. By letter dated 30th November, 2004, the respondents issued notice for submission of detailed information (19 point) and documents for verifying the genuineness and working status of the unit. 16. The petitioners submitted their reply. The petitioners are manufacturing units of smokeless fuels at Faridabad and Kailash Garden-II, New Delhi. They were granted coal linkage of 5000 MT of coal. By letter dated 30th November, 2004, the respondents issued notice for submission of detailed information (19 point) and documents for verifying the genuineness and working status of the unit. 16. The petitioners submitted their reply. The Committee scrutinized the petitioners' reply, but by the impugned letter, the Committee held that the units were not found established. By letter dated 2nd May, 2007 (Annexure-13), the second verification report was submitted. The petitioners' units have been found to be established. In spite of the same, the petitioners have been denied the benefits of coal linkage. 17. The respondents have contested the writ petition and stated, inter alia, that although the name of the Petitioner No. 1 is M/s Gwalior Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd., its name has been altered as M/s Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. with effect from 31 st May, 1999. Coal was, however, purchased in the name of M/s Gwalior Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd. There is great disparity between the unit claiming linkage and the name of the company registered by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners miserably failed to submit sales stocks, details regarding raw materials, power bill and diesel consumed. Thus, working status of the unit could not be established. For the said reason, the coal supply to the petitioners' units has been denied. 18. It has been further stated that in earlier writ petition stand was taken by the petitioner that in compliance of the notice dated 13th June, 2007, they shall handover all the 13 required documents to the counsel for the respondents. The respondents had assured to examine the documents and take appropriate decision. 19. The deficiencies were pointed out in respect of Point Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12. The petitioners could not meet the same. The working status of the petitioners' units have not been established under 13 point verification. The order has been passed after due consideration and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after verification of the documents on 19 point based upon the second verification report. There is', thus, no infirmity in the order and there is no violation of principle of natural justice as well. 20. The order has been passed after due consideration and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after verification of the documents on 19 point based upon the second verification report. There is', thus, no infirmity in the order and there is no violation of principle of natural justice as well. 20. It has been submitted that the question regarding the status of the petitioners' units has been examined on the basis of the several documents. The petitioners have sought for reappraisal of the documents and factual position, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, thus, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 22. The respondents have contended that they have held the petitioner's units non-established on due scrutiny of the documents submitted by the petitioners and that they have got authority and jurisdiction to verify the working status in terms of Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the linkage, there is sufficient compliance of principle of natural justice on the part of the respondents, the petitioners have failed to submit the details of coal stock, its receipt, consumption, sale/stock register, attendance register, electricity bills etc. and in absence of the same, it was not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners' units are established and in running condition. 23. The petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that though the respondents have contended that the petitioners' documents (13 point) were verified, there has been no proper verification of the documents furnished by them. The contention that the show cause notice Issued to the petitioner-M/s Vikram Soft Coke Industries returned with the endorsement of the postman that none was available at the address to receive the registered letter clearly indicate that the establishment is not running. However, the postman has not reported that the unit was closed. On the same address earlier show cause notice was delivered. The notice was replied and prayer was made for dropping the proceeding. Had there been any communication on the address, the petitioners must have received the same. As a matter of fact, there was no communication to the petitioner as claimed by the respondents. On the same address earlier show cause notice was delivered. The notice was replied and prayer was made for dropping the proceeding. Had there been any communication on the address, the petitioners must have received the same. As a matter of fact, there was no communication to the petitioner as claimed by the respondents. The documents submitted by the petitioners have not been considered on the ground that the verification of the documents was concluded on 2nd June, 2005 and the petitioners failed to submit the details in time. The electrical connection is in the name of the proprietor of the unit, but the same has not been accepted, as the electrical connection in the name of proprietorship firm. The reasons explained for not accepting the documents regarding the alleged deficiency are arbitrary and unfounded. The petitioners' documents have been discarded on frivolous and baseless ground. Petitioners' units are based on coal linkage granted to them. The impugned order holding the petitioner's units non-established on the said grounds are wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of principle of natural justice. 24. I find much substance in the contentions of the petitioners. Though the respondents have claimed that the impugned orders have been properly passed after due consideration of the documents and explanation; the reasons assigned by the respondents do not meet the test of fairness to exclude arbitrariness. The reasons assigned in the impugned orders are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 19(1)(g) read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The grounds shown in support of the impugned orders fail to stand to the test prescribed in the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors. [ AIR 1981 SC 136 ]. 25. In the matter of supply of coal to the industries, the Coal Companies exercising monopolistic power has to assure equitable and fair distribution and reasonable consideration of the claims as has been also held by the Supreme Court' in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2007)2 SCC 640 ]. 26. On judicial survey of the facts and materials on record and in view of the elements of fundamental rights and principle of natural justice the consideration and conclusion made by the respondents cannot be said to be just and proper. vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2007)2 SCC 640 ]. 26. On judicial survey of the facts and materials on record and in view of the elements of fundamental rights and principle of natural justice the consideration and conclusion made by the respondents cannot be said to be just and proper. As the fate of the petitioners' units depends on the coal, linkage/supply cannot be denied on assumptions and shaky conclusion. 27. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' claim by affording them reasonable opportunity to bring on record all the documents in support of their claim and reply made against the points and record the finding on each point with cogent reason. The respondents shall fix a date and communicate the petitioners in writing and after having satisfied that there was sufficient service of notice to the petitioners, shall permit them to explain their documents in support of their claims. In case of any confusion on any point, the respondents shall consider the same in the light of other related documents. In case of doubt about the existence of the- units, the respondents shall make spot verification by fixing a date with prior notice to the petitioners and after taking into consideration of overall assessment of the explanation, documents and finding on spot inspection/verification and shall take final decision' on each point recording speaking reasons. 28. Since the petitioners' units are said to be based on linkage of coal, the entire exercises must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 29. There is no order as to cost.